Apple wants to maintain order and should allow iOS apps to link to other payment options. Although Apple previously described the ruling as a "big victory" because its App Store business model has won widespread support, the company is seeking to move away from ban orders that require Apple to enforce its own app rules.
On September 10, Judge Evan Gonzalez Rogers ruled in favor of Epic Games in a US District Court in Northern California for violating the California Unfair Competition Act. The judge has issued a standing order that Apple must “prohibit developers, including (in their apps and metadata buttons, external links or other calls to action that drive customers to purchase mechanisms, as well as internal purchases)” (II) Communication With customers through contact points voluntarily obtained from customers by registering an account in the program. p>
If Apple blocks this if it doesn't work, the iPhone maker must follow it first by December 9, this will allow third-party app developers to increase revenue without paying Apple up to 30%. Allows customers to inform them of payment options Others use email addresses and phone numbers obtained in their apps, and music, video, and book apps are allowed to purchase other options from early 2022 but Apple doesn't want to let games and other iOS apps link to different payment options.
Apple claimed that security risks
On Friday, Apple notified a district court that it would appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the ninth time and asked the district court to suspend the pending appeal.
Apple claims that the requirements of the "enforcement order" Instant” allows developers to post “apps” buttons, external links, or other calls to action “it disrupts the App Store and causes irreparable harm to Apple and consumers.” On demand, it allows Apple to protect consumers and its platform while the company solves complex issues "and there are legal, technological, and economic developments that any revision of this guidebook could include." p>
Apple has argued that these instructions pose security risks to users:>
Links and buttons for alternative payment mechanisms are risky. Users who click on a payment link embedded in an Application—particularly a link distributed through a supervised application store—will be expected to be redirected to a page where they can enter payment information, email address, or other personal information. Present themselves safely. So the developer might try to take advantage of users' trust, which has been carefully nurtured by Apple's secure platform and trick users into paying for their information on a malicious platform. And while developers are required to disclose how users' private information is used in the app, there is no way Apple can verify that the developer payment page adheres to these agents.
Additionally, because external links work outside of iOS - and outside of Apple's business engine - Apple has little insight into its technology and financial performance and has limited capabilities. Compensation for fraud by identifying bad actors and removing them from the App Store. Apple claimed that "wholesale implementation requires significant technical and engineering changes," including "technical solutions to address security and privacy weaknesses" and new application review procedures and guidelines. Apple also argues that "this demand is widespread because it bypasses Epic and affects all developers in the United States." Announcement
Apple's Incomplete Victory
Apple last month called the ruling a "huge victory" and said "Apple's App Store business model" was approved due to the credibility of "it's a legal framework, and was Apple is justified in ending Epic's developer status in the App Store." Apple paid out 30 percent of Epic Games' $12,167,719 revenue collected from users of the Fortnite iOS app via iOS. Epic direct payments between August and October 2020” and 30 percent of revenue after November 1, 2020. Epic notified the court on September 12 that it would appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the ninth round. Apple also said it was seeking to suspend the ruling of the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals. The bill said : “If the [district] court finds that the suspension is pending appeal, Apple will ask the court to temporarily suspend enforcement of the order until Apple requests a suspension of the ninth order.” Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple “was not a monopoly on sub-markets of mobile game transactions,” but he He argued that “Apple’s conduct in imposing anti-driving restrictions is non-competitive.” He described the perpetual order as a “deliberate manipulation [that increases] competition, increases transparency [and] increases consumer choice and consumer information while preserving Apple’s competitively justified iOS ecosystem.”
While the judge found that Apple had violated California law, Apple noted during his stay that "Epic could not demonstrate that Apple had not implemented any federal or state antitrust laws. And he did not violate it.” Apple claimed it likely succeeded in its appeal because “the epic liability theory under the Unfair Competition Act [UCL] cannot be reconciled with findings and conclusions reached by the court elsewhere, particularly in recognition of Apple’s competitive justification.” IAP In fact, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the competitive effects of anti-routing regulations, particularly due to the implementation of the "friction-free transaction promise". Binary transactions, such as the App Store, typically impose some sort of order limitation on platform participants.
Apple called the epic verdict a "great victory", but it made it attractive anyway
Four days ago, the ransomware website REvil, better known as "...
There is a saying in the startup world that many companies are trying to sh...
Last month, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger took to the podium on a foggy and win...